Why Obtaining Employment Is a Significant Obstacle for Offenders Reentering Society

According  PhD dissertation help, it is estimated that approximately 600,000 individuals are released from jail annually. The majority encounter numerous challenges when striving to rejoin society. One of the major obstacles they face is rejoining the workforce. Rates of income and employment of ex-inmates are below average, although in most situations they were relatively limited even prior to the incarceration of these individuals. Decreased employment rates tend to be highly attached to the increased recidivism rates noted among most ex-offenders. However, there is limited data on the earnings and employment of ex-convicts. Most studies conducted by sociologists on the workforce engagement fail to acknowledge past inmates’ conditions as an inquiry. On the other hand, when they succeed, the inquiries might be unreliable. An example of a study that constitutes such information and is broadly applied is the 1979 National Longitudinal Study of Youth cohort. Using this information, Freeman (1992) suggests that weekly employment rates among ex-convicts were about 60 percent during the 80s. Furthermore, the fairly low earnings and employment rates noted in these surveys might portray their weak labor market behaviors and attributes apart from the impact of incarceration. Therefore, most research tends to contrast earnings and employment of ex-convicts with those noted prior to imprisonment and those using unskilled men samples that seem fairly contrastable to criminals based on education levels and other demographic attributes.

Ex-convicts have specific characteristics affecting their earnings and hiring rates, such as limited cognitive and education and poor job experience. For example, sociology assignment and homework help, Travis et al. (2001) noted that 69 percent of criminals and ex-criminals did not graduate from high school. Hirsch et al. (2002) also suggest that at least in a single survey, approximately 50 percent are “practically incompetent. Before incarceration, the rates of employment of criminals are probably not trivial. However, they fall relatively behind those incompetent and dwell in low-income areas by dissertationeditingservices.org. Consequentially, the job experience they had achieved before incarceration was fairly well below what could have occurred when disengaged in crime. Moreover, their incarceration duration might have prevented them from fostering private sector expertise, employers’ connections, or positive work habits. Therefore, when these individuals plan to rejoin the workforce after jail, the limited work experience and poor skills that they accompany constrain both income and employability capacities (Freeman, 1992). Furthermore, many ex-convicts face health-related and substance abuse issues. For example, approximately 75 percent of ex-convicts have faced drug abuse issues; 18 percent contract hepatitis C; two percent are HIV-positive, while about 15 percent report mental health issues (Travis et al., 2001). Besides, among the low population of female ex-convicts, most suffer from past sexual abuse or depression.

Another barrier to ex-convicts’ employment rates is that the majority return to predominantly minority and low-income groups with fairly poor skills. Such challenges are escalated by parole constraints that usually necessitate these individuals to dwell in the same place of their origin, as well as by rules and regulations that prohibit them in some regions of the country from acquiring some documentation, like driver’s licenses (Holzer, 1996). Apart from that, these people face what they supposedly have minimal control criminology assignment help argues that the choices and attitudes that they make also affect their level of income and employment opportunities. For instance, there is likelihood that a high percentage of ex-inmates can discover some work if they search consistently, but those that offer minimal benefits and pay slightly low salaries for upward mobility. Alternatively, they might be forced to accept this work temporarily, but for a while. The attachments of ex-convicts to the legitimate workforce may be tedious in the long run due to their estrangement throughout and fairly unappealing reputations and options from the labor market. Altogether, these factors limit income and employment capacities since they limit the fundamental employment readiness employers globally search for as an employment pre-requirement.

The obstacles ex-inmates face due to their poor health, work skills, and race or residential area usually depict a disconnection amongst these attributes and those hirers search on the demand of the workforce. For instance, most hirers are reluctant to employ ex-convicts with poor reputation. Particular jobs are lawfully bound to people with arson sentencing under federal law and state. For example, there are those jobs necessitating contact with kids, specific health provisions jobs, and working with companies offering security services. Moreover, employers may charge premiums on employees’ integrity, particularly when the capacity to regulate workers’ performance is unsatisfactory. Works that charge significant client contact or handle expensive items or cash will necessitate honest, reliable workers. With concern that previous criminal activity predicts something impactful, employers may consider such historic evidence accountably when employing ex-convicts (Craigie et al., 2020). Moreover, in numerous states, employers are accountable for the misconduct of their workers under the remorseful hiring theory.

In legal terms, negligence is bound to the notion that one who fails to take care of others to the public or in a firm is legally liable for any resulting damages. Under negligent hiring theory, employers are accountable for the potential hazards of exposing their workers or the general public. Therefore, employers may fear hiring ex-convicts because they may face harsh penalties and the liability for pain, loss, and torment due to negligent employment. Research by Connerley et al., (2001) indicates that many employers have faced punitive actions due to loss of negligent employment at a rate of 72 percent averaging to an estimated $1.6 million in settlement. The increased propensity of loss associated with the impact of settlement provisions implies that lawsuit risks may considerably distract hirers from employing ex-convicts.

Leave a Comment